I'm not part of the Atheist Corner...which kind of puts paid to Wayne's accusations about "corporate evil", doesn't it?

Anyway, was anyone besides Wayne participating in this thread to provide validation for their belief?

some including attempted too. but Most left soon after. But Wayne just when off on a tangent. For 35 pages of equivocation and complete imagined BS. And nobody could get a word in edge ways he commandeered the thread with long drawn out post of zero content.

Logged

We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

some including attempted too. but Most left soon after. But Wayne just when off on a tangent. For 35 pages of equivocation and complete imagined BS. And nobody could get a word in edge ways he commandeered the thread with long drawn out post of zero content.

If you felt his posts in this thread were a waste of time, that's your business. But nobody made you come here and read them, or respond to him. So maybe you should have left it to people who are more patient about this sort of thing than you are?

some including attempted too. but Most left soon after. But Wayne just when off on a tangent. For 35 pages of equivocation and complete imagined BS. And nobody could get a word in edge ways he commandeered the thread with long drawn out post of zero content.

If you felt his posts in this thread were a waste of time, that's your business. But nobody made you come here and read them,

I came to read the responses and hoped for, replies. He was allowed to go his merry way far to long the moderation was sadly lacking throughout the thread, but credit where credits due they were after the same as the membership, hoping for replies, etc.. Everybody hoped including the mods, he would understand. He was given a hell of a lot of leeway, but it eventually got to much even for the mods, Hence why he has to put up now or not be allow to continue.

Quote from: jaimehlers

or respond to him.

Luckily for me most people had ask the most pertinent questions. So I only made one or two.

Quote from: jaimehlers

So maybe you should have left it to people who are more patient about this sort of thing than you are?

I did, and it eventually came to this, 36 pages in a 43 page thread is a hell of a lot of patience, about 86% of the thread. Though in my opinion it took far too long.

Logged

We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

I agree it went on way too long, but to his credit, Wayne is rather pleasant and likeable, although definitely irrational and delusional. Unlike, say, Maggie the Opinionated, who, although more rational and less delusional, wears out her welcome pretty damn fast.

I could probably hang with Wayne IRL and share some laughs. I would be serving 15-20 in state prison if I met up with Maggie.

As one of those who has "questions pending", I would far, far prefer that he debate with median in a place where people can see it, than continue the stalemate that exists here. At least then there's a chance that they might be answered at some point in the future. As it stands right now, they won't be answered at all, and I think everyone knows that.

This is a really good point I think, and it points (really) to one of the main reasons I am opposed to certain forms of censorship (especially in debates of this nature). Believers (what Christopher Hitchens called "Religionists) often go through hidden psychological "wrestling" matches (fighting reason) when they encounter non-believers who challenge their presumptions - and for me many times all it takes is to wade through their "crap" talk, break them down over a period of time (like Ali did in the ring), and eventually break through to some real intellectual honesty. Of course, this kind of thing can take a very long time. I debated a man who calls himself "Stompboxman" for well over a year on a music forum. Throughout that "process" I managed to get him to admit many things (such as that his belief is irrational) but it took a lot of time and "wading" before real bits of pieces of truth would come out.

Like most apologists, Wayne is fighting a losing battle, and deep down inside himself he knows this - but just can't admit it because it would be too devastating. Giving up a deep seeded false belief is super difficult and depressing.

I've edited out some of the nonsense. I'm allowing this post because there are a couple of points I have questions about. ~ Screwtape

It is so nice to be back reviewing the kind words that I left seven days ago.

Screwtape,Please allow me to return to the post where you first thought you had proven me wrong about Obama causing or intending to cause the collapse of the the economy.

First let me say that my use of hyperbole probably should have been moderated. In your need to contradict a hyperbole you managed to skate past the truth embedded in that hyperbole.

You do great damage to your case by blazing by the clear disclosure of Obama's intent to ruin the banking system to insist, as you seem to, that he would never do what he clearly had full intent to do.

You used the snopes article to debunk my statement but it really did no such thing. What it did do is affirm that the junior associate was a part of a model action that is a perfect template for all the future actions and the disaster that followed.

I think you know that. As hard as the truth is, I think you realise that a man that knows little of and cares even less about the health of a banking system, made to be president of the United States qualifies as one of those Idi Amin characteristics that my vision encompasses.

So, consider this a moderated explanation to cover your two questions.

You and those others of you who believe that no truth can be established unless it is neatly contained withing your parameters are rendered fools to think that Snopes somehow exonerated Obama in this case. Your desperate need for me to be wrong has blinded you from the obvious.

I'll leave the post below as it was and if you will allow these comments to post, I will follow it by reposting the response that PP was kind enough to paste into a PM to me in deference to your mandate that I not be heard from until I complied to your demands.

My reply to Parking places was as much a reply to you as to him on this matter, I'm just sorry you couldn't see it when I posted it. It has been SEVEN days since my incarceration, and somehow that seems appropriate for a sabbatical.

And by the way lookee heere You guys look silly making your claims about Fox News and then blasting me.

The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something. He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald I write because I've been given something to say.*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodesHave Wayne Committed, Win a Prize! (V

A startling new story by The Daily Caller reveals how a mortgage discrimination lawsuit by then-attorney Barack Obama left many African Americans on the hook for home loans they couldn't pay back. Tucker Carlson, founder of The Daily Caller, joined Fox and Friends this morning from North Carolina where the Democratic National Convention is set to take place this week.

Second, Obama was not the lead attorney in this suit. He was way down the totem pole. He billed a total of $467 dollars for his part in the case. Less than three hours. He was one of the attorneys on the team, but way down the list in terms of participation.

Are there issues as to whether or not the decision in this suite was the right one? Yep. Are there issues here worth discussing to help prevent similar errors in judgment in the future? Yep. Is this suite proof positive that Obama is out to destroy the nation? Well, that’s a bit far-fetched. I'm gonna say nope.

Imagine a whole segment of our population being denied certain rights of access to financial services only because of where they lived. Something called redlining. Is that supposed to be the American way? Is that the best method for dealing with economic inequality: keeping it that way? Or was it perhaps an effort on the part of well meaning people to fix a problem? And, given who was involved, is it suprising that not all of them could successfully navigate the wild and whacky world of high finance from which they had been shut out for their entire lives?

Quote

He told Steve Doocy that the lawsuit was a class action suit of 186 clients, which accused Citibank of redlining — the process of excluding people from mortgages because they live in bad neighborhoods.Carlson said that Obama was a lead plaintiff on some of these cases, though just a few years later many of the clients weren’t able to pay up. The lawsuit was pushed forward regardless, on the grounds that it was racist not to give them mortgages. He reported that nearly half of the clients from this 1995 lawsuit against Citibank have gone bankrupt or received foreclosure notices and only 19 still own homes.

As Graybeard has noted, Obama was NOT the lead plaintiff. He was a lawyer on the team, two years out of law school. Who put less than three hours into the suite. This is very different that what Carlson reported.

Note too that little is said about the timeline for when people the various borrowers involved defaulted. Yes, there is some info in the video that indicates there were defaults early in the life of the loan, within the first few years. But what percentage of the defaults came after the economy tanked in 2007-2008, when tons of people started loosing their homes because of the bad economy. You can be sure that if all the loans defaulted during a good economy, he would have reported it. By not mentioning the timeline for those failures, he is lying by omission. A reporter owes it to readers to be honest about such things.

Quote

According to Carlson, who was speaking on behalf of Neil Munro, the reporter who spent time investigating this, some of the plaintiffs didn't know Obama was involved in the suit and were bewildered that they received loans when it was obvious that they couldn’t repay it.Munro did not receive comment from the White House on this issue and found no evidence that Obama went back and spoke to the people he was representing.

The use of the world “bewildered” is a bit perplexing. No, make that bewildering. Obama was an unknown entity who spent less than three hours on the case. The lead attorneys were much more visible. I'm fine with folks saying “I had no idea that Obama was on the team. But so what”. Anything else is disingenuous.

If I were the White House, I wouldn't bother commenting either. There is nothing here.

Lastly, do keep in mind that loans of this sort made up only 6% of all housing loans when the economy went sour. (The lawsuit was in response to Citibank's' loan policies. They were also only 6% of the failed mortgages.) The law called upon by the lawyers in the case was the Community Reinvestment act of 1977. Which did not apply to all lending institutions:http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.htmlWhich sort of means that if they were the only thing that went belly up in the housing bubble, it wouldn't be deserving of the name. The ruling in this case involved only depository banks, and the vast majority of the loans that went sour during the burst were via large loan companies like Countrywide, which were not subject to those laws. So again, this lawsuit is virtually irrelevant.

Hindsight is 20/20. If someone wants to point out the social harm this lawsuit and others like it caused, fine. Even I can see that. But to think that the story is proof that Obama is out to destroy America is ludicrous.

And that’s why we think your source material sucks. And that is why we need more information before there is any chance that we will consider your side of the story.

Wayne, when you are making heavy duty charges, like "Obama is out to destroy America" and "Obama is just another Idi Amin", this is how you say it. With corroborative information. With links. With sources.

Opinions are great, but base them on something. You're allowed to have them, but it is so nice if there is something behind them besides dreams of sugarplums shoved up someones rear end.

Note of interest: Fox loves itself so much it didn’t even link to Carlsons' web site. What sort of idiotic news team would be too selfish to provide a frickin’ link? Oops, I answered my own question.

My answer to Parking Places overly defensive cowtowing to Obamamania begins here:First Parking Places thanks for providing the link to this story that I hadn't seen:

Now, after seven days' sabbatical, I'm wondering if the hysterical Obama defenders are ready to delete my responses for a second time. I offer that rhetorical question to the casual observers here... if they should be so fortunate as to be able to read my responses. Before commenting, I suggest that you view the videos that make my point better than I can myself and then review this Pew Study, before going into hysterics about how wrong Wayne is to say that Obama intends to destroy the stability of the American economy and how everything on Fox is a LIE.. which is PP and screwtapes operating philosophy.

***Below is what got moderated out*** (because I took screwtapes threat as an opportunity to rest) Let's see if it isn't just as true now as it was seven days ago.

Every criminal needs a good defense. The post of mine that caused the explosion of free lance criminal defense attorney activity made a simple challenge, please allow me to quote myself:

QuoteFor casual readers here that want to know the truth just do a search of two words together Citibank and Obama. You are going to find the truth and then you will find a strident criminal defense. Read them both and see whether I should follow screwtapes profane advice for me for being on the side of the truth.That strident criminal defense emerged in full force didn't it? Thanks to all of you. Obama's success is absolutely stunning and you should be proud to play your part. Now, for you that have seen the video you can understand how embarrassing it is to have to scramble around assembling that defense. I commend you all for your passion but here's the meat of that defense: " Obama was not the lead attorney in this suit" oh I see, so he must not have agreed with it right? I mean you have to give him the benefit of the doubt, not being the lead attorney and all.

Here's a little insight into that. He likely wasn't competent. He's not really that much of an attorney, he's a community organiser. He joined in the litigation with the intent to do what the suit sought after, but the experienced trial attorneys would do the heavy hitting. Your need to diminish his role to protect your precious leader is pathological. All your ad homonym attacks on Fox are to be expected but the report did not exaggerate the the core of the issue even if a well tuned criminal defense attorney could poke a few holes in minor details. You guys have missed your calling. OJ could have used you, but now look at him sitt'n in jail like he is.

Here's another part of that defense: "It's not a new story". Oh well then, then there must not be any truth to it at all, being old like that. It's like George Washington couldn't possibly have known anything that was true. Age does take it's toll on the truth, we all know that.

And then this is always an effective element of any criminal defense, the best of ad homonym: "It’s just a game for Fox." Just exactly what does that mean? That doesn't matter, really because all we criminal defense attorneys have made up our minds not to allow any credit when a source we don't like has something right. That's a maxim of our corporate brand of evil. A maxim someone here would like to turn into a WWGHA policy.

I'm going to leave the rest of the comments as they were below for the casual reader because it's all a good example of corporate dissembling all to make sure that Wayne doesn't get credit for making a point. Remember that corporate evil I was talking about?.... You guys sure manage to cooperate with each other and you look silly doing it. But, because you are all unified in that evil, you do accomplish some amazing things, like managing to re elect a destroyer instead of a repairer like Romney. (This kind of thing was his private sector, Gubernatorial and Olympic specialty by the way).

And then to kind of balance the whole thing after diminishing Obama's role, the ad homomym, the hedging admission that 'errors' were made the truth comes out that as stupid and wrong as the lawsuit was, throwing innocent people into bankruptcy, you give a three cheers to the faulty reasoning that caused it by in effect saying you would have done the same thing as Obama, given the chance. It doesn't matter if it was stupid, or wrong, or destructive, you would have been all in for it, and, that somehow reinforces your position that Fox News needs to be dismissed as just 'playing games'.

That video was absolutely fabulous, and makes my point so beautifully that Obama, the rising star, is fulfilling his father Frank Marshall Davis' dream in ways "Uncle Frank" could never have imagined. The liberal sheep just lap it up.

The photograph is really a great one, even if the content of the book isn't as conspiratorial as the title is. Hey, a great picture is a great picture after all. He has just enough spunk and confidence to have enjoyed posing for it. You know how a catchy title will attract your attention? I hope the president wasn't disappointed that the content wasn't as useful as the cover was for him. Man I love that picture, it's got America's Idi Amin written all over it.

The picture is of an actor playing the role of Satan, it is not Obama in a hoodie. I just want to make that clear.

[/size]

And by the way, the "nonsense" that screwtape edited out of my previous post was nothing more than a direct pasted in quote from screwtape, nothing more.

Is that why it qualifies as nonsense screwtape? You're right to be embarrassed to have me pasting in direct quotes from you. A decent person would apologise, so let's have it. It's time. You're welcome to apologise by PM if you need to save face.

« Last Edit: March 20, 2013, 09:54:47 AM by WayneHarropson »

Logged

The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something. He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald I write because I've been given something to say.*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodesHave Wayne Committed, Win a Prize! (V

You do great damage to your case by blazing by the clear disclosure of Obama's intent to ruin the banking system to insist, as you seem to, that he would never do what he clearly had full intent to do.

Flaming, not blazing.

And there was nothing anywhere that showed President Obama's intent. Not the Snopes link not the fox link not the dailycaller link. There are plenty of projections of the writer's opinion injected into the fox and daily caller pieces. But nothing that would establish intent on the part of Obama. They made unsupported claims. Just like you.

What it did do is affirm that the junior associate was a part of a model action that is a perfect template for all the future actions and the disaster that followed.

1. that was not your original claim. You have moved the goal posts. As I said in the post I quoted above, your claim was that he "commandeered" the whole economy and drove it off a cliff, not that he just played a role. As I said above, if that is no longer your claim, then you need to spit the marbles out of your mouth and say that.

2. If you are saying this suit was the first domino that set off a chain reaction that caused the whole financial meltdown, you need to show that. I don't know your math background, but in advanced math classes you must show your work. If on a test you write the correct answer but show no work, you will often get no credit. But if you show your work and mistakenly get the wrong answer, you will still get at least some credit. Same here. If you are wrong - and you are wrong - but show your work, you will at least get partial credit.

3. You need to show it was model action and a template. Opinions of fox newsies are unacceptable. You are using someone else's unsupported claims as support your own unsupported claims.

I think you know that. As hard as the truth is, I think you realise that a man that knows little of and cares even less about the health of a banking system, made to be president of the United States qualifies as one of those Idi Amin characteristics that my vision encompasses.

I do not think any of that is true, except that he may know little about banking, though he clearly knows more than you or I. But few people do, especially presidents. Finance is a highly technical and esoteric field. Running the country is too complicated for any one person to have mastery of even one aspect of it. Do you think Bush or Reagan knew anything about banking? That is why presidents have advisors who are specialists. Similarly, the CEO of GM probably cannot design an engine and probably has no background in engineering.

You and those others of you who believe that no truth can be established unless it is neatly contained withing your parameters are rendered fools to think that Snopes somehow exonerated Obama in this case.

ah, no. It was not just snopes. It was the Wall Street Journal and Business Week that exonorated Obama. Did you read those links, Wayne? Or did you read them and just not understand them?

Screwtape.Please approve my response to Parking Places. It makes very important points both to you and parking places and after those others on this forum have had a chance to read that response, I will entertain some of your new questions.As a matter of fact, I would prefer that you first respond to the Parking Places one yourself before I look into your new set of comments.Thanks. Wayne

« Last Edit: March 20, 2013, 09:55:22 AM by WayneHarropson »

Logged

The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something. He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald I write because I've been given something to say.*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodesHave Wayne Committed, Win a Prize! (V

Wayne, the OP of this thread is about validating your belief in Yaweh Elohim, the ancient Judaic said deity. Please get back to the subject. You can create another thread on politics elsewhere. We are still waiting for you to demonstrate how you know a deity is speaking to you and/or "directing" you to do things.

This is my response to PPs comments on Obama crashing the economy. Parking Places and screwtape are a MSNBC propaganda tag team and they aren't doing themselves any favors.

First of all, I hate to break it to you, but I haven't watched MSNBC since I quit traveling around on my job and living in motel rooms, which for the most part ended ten years ago. I don't have their site bookmarked on my computer, I don't give a fuck what they say. Just sayin'.

The Pew Research Center, while generally considered middle of the road, isn't perfect. They claimed Romney would win big just a couple of days before the last election. So there is no need to take their numbers as religiously correct.

Too, I have no doubt that MSNBC and others have gone downhill just as badly as Fox News. It sells. There is little reporting being done anywhere any more. Anyone relying on television for their news is only there to be entertained.

I get my news from the NYT, the BBC, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and a variety of news aggregators. I ignore all, and by that I mean ALL, stories about celebrities, sports, television, health and nutrition, cute YouTube videos, cats and anything involving anything forwarded to me by anybody. If I am driving and any of the following programs are on, I listen to the following to make sure they are still idiots: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck.

It's dangerous. Their trillions of commercials for portapotties and stuff can put a guy to sleep. But I do it for the children. Just wanted you to know I'm not very good at being anyones minion.

Quote

My answer to Parking Places overly defensive cowtowing to Obamamania begins here:First Parking Places thanks for providing the link to this story that I hadn't seen:

It should be. It was four years earlier. My point was that the link you provided was treating it like breaking news, when they had been reporting on earlier. Don't they watch their own frickin' programs?

My other point was that it still wasn't actually news. What part of "junior partner doing as was told" and "he billed for less than three hours of work on the case" don't you understand?

Quote

Now, after seven days' sabbatical, I'm wondering if the hysterical Obama defenders are ready to delete my responses for a second time. I offer that rhetorical question to the casual observers here... if they should be so fortunate as to be able to read my responses. Before commenting, I suggest that you view the videos that make my point better than I can myself and then review this Pew Study, before going into hysterics about how wrong Wayne is to say that Obama intends to destroy the stability of the American economy and how everything on Fox is a LIE.. which is PP and screwtapes operating philosophy.

Quote

As mentioned above, I don't watch MSNBC. Do you watch Fox? Notice that their opinion/fact ratio is pretty sucky too. Not as bad, but nothing to brag about.

***Below is what got moderated out*** (because I took screwtapes threat as an opportunity to rest) Let's see if it isn't just as true now as it was seven days ago.

Every criminal needs a good defense. The post of mine that caused the explosion of free lance criminal defense attorney activity made a simple challenge, please allow me to quote myself:

QuoteFor casual readers here that want to know the truth just do a search of two words together Citibank and Obama. You are going to find the truth and then you will find a strident criminal defense. Read them both and see whether I should follow screwtapes profane advice for me for being on the side of the truth.That strident criminal defense emerged in full force didn't it? Thanks to all of you. Obama's success is absolutely stunning and you should be proud to play your part. Now, for you that have seen the video you can understand how embarrassing it is to have to scramble around assembling that defense. I commend you all for your passion but here's the meat of that defense: " Obama was not the lead attorney in this suit" oh I see, so he must not have agreed with it right? I mean you have to give him the benefit of the doubt, not being the lead attorney and all.

Here's a little insight into that. He likely wasn't competent. He's not really that much of an attorney, he's a community organiser. He joined in the litigation with the intent to do what the suit sought after, but the experienced trial attorneys would do the heavy hitting. Your need to diminish his role to protect your precious leader is pathological. All your ad homonym attacks on Fox are to be expected but the report did not exaggerate the the core of the issue even if a well tuned criminal defense attorney could poke a few holes in minor details. You guys have missed your calling. OJ could have used you, but now look at him sitt'n in jail like he is.

Here's another part of that defense: "It's not a new story". Oh well then, then there must not be any truth to it at all, being old like that. It's like George Washington couldn't possibly have known anything that was true. Age does take it's toll on the truth, we all know that.

I have a huge advantage over you. I am unable to hate as ardently. I am unable to blind myself with rage as well as you. I am unable to dwell on simple thoughts and consider them answers. I am unable to (nor do I need to) simplify everything for my own consumption. I am unable to be uncurious and an idiot. Which makes conversing with you quite difficult. See, I don't know any two years olds who can translate what I am about to say into a simpler language that you could understand. You'll have to find help on your end.

You have chosen to follow your party line on Obama. I dislike him because of drones, secrecy policies, his unwlllingness to let up on the republican gestapo that is the TSA, the stalinist Homeland Security department or anything else that the Bush administration did to run our country through a copy machine and make it like Iron Curtain era Russia. Obama is going along with it for reasons I will never understand. It turns out that I live in a country full of chickens, who don't realize that when Bin Laden attacked this country, he won because he destroyed it forever. We can kill 3,000 a month in car wrecks and not bat an eyelash. We can kill 3,000 every two months with guns in this coutry and nobody cares. But fly an airplane into a couple of buildings and kill that many and suddenly we have to ruin everything we ever had to exact our revenge. The country you loved in 2000 doesn't exist any more. Anyone who lives within 100 miles of a US border (including the coastline) is subject to arbitrarily being stopped by Border Patrol agents and being searched without warrant. Straight from the Bush administration. Until the courts overturned it recently, the TSA could simply take your laptop at the airport and tell you they'd return it after they checked its contents. A few months down the road if you were lucky. Obama hasn't stopped that. I have no reason to be a fan.

But I am more an Obama fan than a McCain fan (I could have tolerated him, but not two or three years of Palin as VP, after which she would have quit to write a book complaining about everyone calling her a quitter, but in the meantime would have been America's Official Bitch). Romney is so frickin' sleazy he makes Idi Amin seem like a Sesame Street character. So I support Obama because he is the lesser of evils, not because he is the greatest thing since food stamps.

I checked the Olympic records and was surprised to see that you've never won a gold medal for jumping to conclusions. But your ability to tie tiny little bits of historical fluff together and redefine them as major events is astonishing. Well, not really. You're just mouthing the words of simple people like yourself that you feel a kinship for. I call them sleaze bags, but hey, that's just me.

The Obama/Citibank thing is a grasping at straws piece of shit. You are trying to tell us that that case alone caused the great housing collapse of 2008, even though that part of the market was less than 6% of all mortgages. I understand that numbers that don't line up with your party-line thinking are to be ignored, but I wish you would pay a bit more attention to that one, because it is small and even you can count that high. And your insistence that Obama is out to destroy the banks and such when he made Geitner Treasury Secretary is like saying the Chicago Bulls were out to destroy basketball when they signed Michael Jordan.

Get this dude. Sleazy bankers of the investment variety took advantage of a variety of legal loopholes to both wrongly approve mortgages for all sorts of people, including, and get this, white people with middle class incomes, AND by making it easier to loans to be given out (which they immediately sold to somewhat naïve investors, knowing full well that many of them would never be repaid), they drove up housing prices because there was little room to bargain in a financial world where loans were a dime a dozen. And if you can't lay at least 90% of the blame for the housing crisis where it belongs, with the 1%'ers who don't yet have enough money, then everything you are using to describe reality to yourself is a lie, and you should be a bit embarrassed about that.

Quote

And then this is always an effective element of any criminal defense, the best of ad homonym: "It’s just a game for Fox." Just exactly what does that mean? That doesn't matter, really because all we criminal defense attorneys have made up our minds not to allow any credit when a source we don't like has something right. That's a maxim of our corporate brand of evil. A maxim someone here would like to turn into a WWGHA policy.

I'm sorry. It isn't a game for Fox News. They have to simplify everything so that their viewers will understand just enough to stick around for the ads. Not their fault.

What are you imagining WWGHA policy is. And how effective do you think it might be? Typical you. Simplify the fuck out of something then define the resulting brain fart as an insight. Where you usually have your head is a bit to dark to see anything, so don't be so impressed.

Quote

I'm going to leave the rest of the comments as they were below for the casual reader because it's all a good example of corporate dissembling all to make sure that Wayne doesn't get credit for making a point. Remember that corporate evil I was talking about?.... You guys sure manage to cooperate with each other and you look silly doing it. But, because you are all unified in that evil, you do accomplish some amazing things, like managing to re elect a destroyer instead of a repairer like Romney. (This kind of thing was his private sector, Gubernatorial and Olympic specialty by the way).

Yep, he fixed the Olympics. With a big bailout from taxpayers:

Quote

McCain Called The Amount Of Federal Money Going To The Olympics “A National Disgrace” And Said There Should Be “A Federal Investigation” While Romney Defended The Federal Funds. McCain: “But you’ve got well over $1 billion that’s just a rip-off of the taxpayers, and, you know, is really a national disgrace…Actually, there should be a federal investigation.” ROMNEY: But Senator McCain, I believe, raises a very good question. What should the role of the federal government be with regards to the Olympics? Should it provide the security? Should it provide the highways and bridges necessary to get people to venues? In my view, the answer is, unequivocally, yes.” [CBS Evening News (6:30 PM ET) – CBS, February 9, 2002]

Makes you proud when one rethuglican wants to investigate another, doesn't it. Like old times. Like when Nixon had his peeps break into the Watergate looking for evidence that the democrats knew he had interfered with the Vietnam Peace Talks in order to get elected:

That's called selective reasoning. You select one thing to think about and ignore absolutely everything else. And call yourself politically astute. Sorry fella, you don't get to make the decision by yourself. You're not old enough.

Quote

And then to kind of balance the whole thing after diminishing Obama's role, the ad homomym, the hedging admission that 'errors' were made the truth comes out that as stupid and wrong as the lawsuit was, throwing innocent people into bankruptcy, you give a three cheers to the faulty reasoning that caused it by in effect saying you would have done the same thing as Obama, given the chance. It doesn't matter if it was stupid, or wrong, or destructive, you would have been all in for it, and, that somehow reinforces your position that Fox News needs to be dismissed as just 'playing games'.

Nope, I said in my post that errors may have been made, and that we should learn from them. I didn't say we should get on our knees and pray to Obama. But I don't think any financial errors made during that court case causes the whole fucking planet to fall apart. You're giving poor people who want a house to live in too much credit here.

Quote

That video was absolutely fabulous, and makes my point so beautifully that Obama, the rising star, is fulfilling his father Frank Marshall Davis' dream in ways "Uncle Frank" could never have imagined. The liberal sheep just lap it up.

OKAY! I'VE HAD IT! If you are going to make an accusation, like the Frank Marshall thing, EXPLAIN IT! Tell us what you mean by that. It isn't genetically available information. It isn't common knowledge. Unlike you, I haven't been in kindergarten lately, but I don't think its in the curriculum. Is it because he lived in Hawaii most of his adult life, and influenced Obama, who wasn't born even born there as per most Tea Baggers. How did this happen? Or did you just like his dirty novel. You know, the one you hide under you bed?

Quote

The photograph is really a great one, even if the content of the book isn't as conspiratorial as the title is. Hey, a great picture is a great picture after all. He has just enough spunk and confidence to have enjoyed posing for it. You know how a catchy title will attract your attention? I hope the president wasn't disappointed that the content wasn't as useful as the cover was for him. Man I love that picture, it's got America's Idi Amin written all over it.

[/color]

The picture is of an actor playing the role of Satan, it is not Obama in a hoodie. I just want to make that clear.

[/size]

So you're admitting the book in his hand isn't as bad as you hoped but you still want to make a big deal out of it. And you've shown that you can do a little tiny bit of Internet research and you admit the satan actor photo isn't Obama, but you tossed it in anyway because you would hate to start limiting your source material to factual stuff. So you're admitting you've got nothing so you need to exaggerate. Got it. Thanks for being so honest.

And the Idi Amin stuff? He was hard on his country's economy, but he also killed up to half a million people. And he was black. Which is very convenient to you as a racist who says he isn't a racist because many racists are afraid to sound racist. There have been dozens of other prominent leaders who damaged their countries economies, but they weren't black enough for you, or disgusting enough for you, or they were too republican or white and that just didn't fit your preconceived notions about a black man that you've been told to hate. We get it. No need to bring it up again.

Quote

And by the way, the "nonsense" that screwtape edited out of my previous post was nothing more than a direct pasted in quote from screwtape, nothing more.

Is that why it qualifies as nonsense screwtape? You're right to be embarrassed to have me pasting in direct quotes from you. A decent person would apologise, so let's have it. It's time. You're welcome to apologise by PM if you need to save face.

I take it that your "How to Win Friends and Influence People" coloring book hasn't arrived yet. Ask a grown up to check the shipping status. If you just knew how to interact with people without pissing them off, you'd be so much easier to talk to. But right now that is your only talent.

Which would be fine. If you were right about some of it. You're not.

I would apologize for being harsh with you. But I won't. My only other alternative was to throw my big new computer screen across the room, and I'm barefoot. Didn't want to cut my feet walking over the shards of plastic that would splatter all over the place. I trust that you understand.

Screwtape.Please approve my response to Parking Places. It makes very important points both to you and parking places and after those others on this forum have had a chance to read that response, I will entertain some of your new questions.As a matter of fact, I would prefer that you first respond to the Parking Places one yourself before I look into your new set of comments.Thanks. Wayne

The post was approved by me. I was busy this morning and not at my computer. Hopefully we didn't destroy the flow of your story.

Logged

Anyone can beat around the bush. But unless you have permission from the bush, you probably shouldn't.

Wayne, the OP of this thread is about validating your belief in Yaweh Elohim, the ancient Judaic said deity. Please get back to the subject. You can create another thread on politics elsewhere. We are still waiting for you to demonstrate how you know a deity is speaking to you and/or "directing" you to do things.

Median

You of course have an excellent point, but we're trying to figure out a way to get Wayne to occasionally answer questions, and we decided to go with what he obsesses about. He appears to be slightly interested in those subjects.

Believe me, most threads don't go like this. But it is far more likely that there is a god than it is llikely that Wayne will ever contribute anything but his ego to this site.

Logged

Anyone can beat around the bush. But unless you have permission from the bush, you probably shouldn't.

I made the mistake of clicking on Wayne's link and saw that Obama (whose policies are from the republican national platform circa 1990-- and that is NOT an exaggeration) is a communist (!) and that one of his major influences, besides Satan, and of course, Idi Amin, is Malcolm X.

I got the ignorant Idi Amin thing because Africa. And I know that Wayne has no clue what a communist is. I am a commie. We meet secretly at night and President Obama is not invited. And it is always good to invoke Satan.

But Malcolm X? Honestly, did you even see the Spike Lee movie, Wayne, or did god just tell you the two were connected?

You mean you think that President Middle America Harvard Law University of Chicago Conservative Market Economics Obama is like the revolutionary black muslim nationalist leader who stayed far away from electoral politics and avoided white institutions like Harvard and the legal system and was in prison and avoided contact with most white folks Malcolm X? Really? Because black?

I dislike him because of (..) anything else that the Bush administration did to run our country through a copy machine and make it like Iron Curtain era Russia.

I had to correct it because it's a huge exaggeration. I was born behind the Iron Curtain and I can assure you that most of the Americans have no slightest idea how it was to live there. Can you imagine there is no meat in any shop in your city? Only vinegar?USA have never been like communist Russia and probably have long way ahead to become like it.

I dislike him because of (..) anything else that the Bush administration did to run our country through a copy machine and make it like Iron Curtain era Russia.

I had to correct it because it's a huge exaggeration. I was born behind the Iron Curtain and I can assure you that most of the Americans have no slightest idea how it was to live there. Can you imagine there is no meat in any shop in your city? Only vinegar?USA have never been like communist Russia and probably have long way ahead to become like it.

Apart from that, I admire your patience with Wayne

Point taken, su27. Though we don't have meat in our supermarkets either. I don't know what it is, but it ain't meat.

I was exaggerating some, but the loss of freedom we have experienced since 9/11 with the Bush administration's over the top reaction has certainly changed the atmosphere in the US. People getting arrested for photographing bridges and dams. Little kids being fondled by TSA officers. Having to buy shampoo at your destination because Prell is too frickin' dangerous on a plane in large amounts, i.e. over 3 oz.

Not to mention the unfettered bugging of our communications, the lack of open and fair trials for terror suspects, the illegal renditions, waterboarding, Guantanamo, etc. These are all things that we didn't have to deal with in 2000. Bin Laden was probably chuckling all the way to his watery grave.

Our motto from the get go has been "We have nothing to fear but our fear of our fears, which is, like, you know, really, really high, so lets all panic!" Sadly, that won't fit on a t-shirt so we fake it with phrases like "Liberty and Justice for All".

We have no idea that the rest of the world is wondering where American courage went. We're too busy shrieking.

We live in a complex world, and we need to be able to react wisely as situations and conditions and climates change. But instead, we nervously worry that some dude with a suicide vest will rudely interrupt the next workplace shooting.

We're done for. Like people who go hunting with Dick Cheney, we just don't know we're dead yet. (Forgive my using poetic license in that last sentence. It just sounded too good to edit out because of being factually wrong. Though I'll probably get a medal from some big American journalism organization for accuracy in reporting because of it. Or at least a shout out from the NRA.)

Logged

Anyone can beat around the bush. But unless you have permission from the bush, you probably shouldn't.

We are not turning into Soviet Russia. Soviet Russia delivered some social services along with the surveillance and the gulag. We are skipping over that straight into dystopian Mad Max every armed man for himself hunker down Back to the Future meets Les Miserables--with the 1% living like the Jetsons and everyone else like Quest for Fire.

I tell my late teen and 20-something students that they have no idea how life used to be in this country before awful became the new normal:

--waiting in line to undress and get felt up at the airport in front of family and friends--wondering if the government or some private company with government friends is monitoring your email, internet use, library checkouts and phone calls--everyone has or wants a really powerful gun as defense against other people with really powerful guns--everyone is, or is afraid of being, or is afraid of, a homeless person--everyone else in the world hates, is confused by or is afraid of us--support for neverending, stupid, pointless, expensive wars against unknown mysterious enemies everywhere as a sign of patriotism--"freedom" equals the right to know only what corporations want to tell us, to eat unhealthy food, to have no health care, to have no birth control supplies and to have no education--politicians arguing that some people do not have the right to vote, even if they are citizens, and that we have too much food inspection going on--people proudly declare that they would rather have lower taxes instead of fire protection, police officers, libraries, teachers and roads

And so on, as Kurt Vonnegut used to say. We will have third world status without the vast survival skills and talents that third world people have developed to cope in those settings.

1) Barton shows crime went up from 1963 to 1989 – the end of his data.2) All later studies then show crime going DOWN from 1989 to today – to 1963 levels.

Why precisely are you unwilling to accept ANY of the later studies – none of which, incidentally contradict Barton’s work. What they DO do is contradict the conclusions that you have drawn from a far, far, earlier study – which is therefore, for the purposes of your argument, incomplete.

….. the inculcating of biblical morality in public that your precious atheism insists upon. There is a consequence to over ruling biblical morality. Atheism is the culprit. You should be ashamed.

I claim, by contrast, that the fault lies in the failure of self-professed Christians to correctly follow the teachings of their god. The millions upon millions who do not correctly practice the faith that god clearly laid out for them…. God is angry at THEM, not at the athesists, and THAT is why all the bad things are happening….this also explains why "bad things" happen to "Christians" so much, and why so many atheists live rich and happy lives.

So that's MY assertion, Wayne, as to why all the bad stuff happened. Can you give us one single shred of evidence as to why your chosen interpretation is more rational than mine? Especially since, as I've pointed out, my explanation provides more answers than yours?

1) Your god had the means and opportunity to save the lives of three people.2) He chose instead to send you a "message" you could not understand until after the fact.3) Had your god acted differently, three people would be alive today who are not.

I want to know exactly why your god chose to do what he did.And I want to know exactly how you define the actions it took as "good".

It would be evil if you knew to do good and decided to instead do evil.

...which seems pretty absolute. However, he wishes to say that in his god's case, that does not apply. I've asked him to explain why - bearing in mind that he has also said that he is unable to explain why his god does what it does. So I've asked by what measure he is able to reverse his normal ideas of morality to excuse a being whose actions he is unable to explain.

You believe this story (regarding George Washington being unharmed by bullets) - so you believe that your god will - somehow - ensure that bullets will not harm a person he particularly cares about. So tell me, Wayne - why DIDN'T your god care about the people in the theatre? Why DIDN'T he care about all those schoolchildren just a few weeks ago? (You) are 100% clear that your god CAN and WILL deflect bullets, and who therefore chose NOT to intervene for the children.

If it is inspirational for GW to be shot at and live, why would it not be EXACTLY as inspirational for the children to be shot at and live?

There is a prophecy currently pending within one of the stories on my premonitions link page. I'll let you know if it comes true, If it doesn't, you won't hear a peep…..I'm going to stay coy here. I have my reputation to protect. I have been wrong about so many things and it has just been my luck not to have broadcast them it like so many failed prognosticators have.

Unless and until you are prepared to be completely open about your predictions and feelings, there is no need at all to analyse the "hits" you present. Therefore, please be specific. What is the prophecy you are referring to?

Quick hypothetical for you, on a similar subject. I put it to you that EVERY intervention in your life that you have ascribed to your god, was actually carried out by Satan. This has led you to a deeper belief in your god…..but has also fooled you into thinking you had a special place in your god's attentions (such that) you come to an atheist forum to tell us those tales…..tales that - as we have intimated before - are driving us FURTHER from your god. In short, Satan has done all this in your life to ensure that you will lead to many, many souls being driven to him rather than to god.

Can you explain by what means you would determine that that scenario is incorrect?

Oh boy! The profanities, the threats of destroying ones own personal property, the embarrassment of having been trumped by Wayne's well articulated analysis of the character and obfuscations of free lance criminal defense attorneys. It's like a bomb went off!Stay tuned. See what happens next.I can't thank you enough parking places for offering up an even better video than the one I posted here:.

You see, the problem with screwtape is that he can't watch videos, and other kinds of information hidden in links and so has to articulate his blazing attacks on me without really knowing how substantial my argument is. That has always, from the very beginning of this thread been the problem.

I think we should put this discussion to bed. I need not articulate answers to the minutia brought about by the criminal defense councel when my argument was already made by solid Fox News reporting. As always, my arguments are never quite as good as my proof.

Don't forget to watch the original video that opened up theOJ Simpson Freelance Star Defense School of Law campus right here at WWGHA ....Just click > here:

The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something. He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald I write because I've been given something to say.*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodesHave Wayne Committed, Win a Prize! (V

Oh boy! The profanities, the threats of destroying ones own personal property, the embarrassment of having been trumped by Wayne's well articulated analysis of the character and obfuscations of free lance criminal defense attorneys.

You've been beaten, wayne. You've been needing to man up and admit it for a loooooong time.

Logged

"In the end theologians are jealous of science, for they are aware that it has greater authority than do their own ways of finding “truth”: dogma, authority, and revelation. Science does find truth, faith does not. " - Jerry Coyne

A bozo is someone who thinks they are much smarter and capable than they actually are. They constantly over-estimate their abilities and under-estimate the risks and threats around them. They typically don’t keep an open-mind. They look instead for data that confirms a previously held bias. They also don’t handle details well.

Wayne is probably pretty proud to have been featured there...

Note to the others. I saved you from a video Wayne posted that was so repulsive that "Two girls and a cup" would have been more pleasing. It wasn't dirty, but it was so slimy that I'm going to have to have my Internet connection cleaned by professionals.

« Last Edit: March 21, 2013, 06:46:29 PM by ParkingPlaces »

Logged

Anyone can beat around the bush. But unless you have permission from the bush, you probably shouldn't.

I really don't see how Wayne can continue to insist with a straight face that Obama was responsible for wrecking the housing industry because he worked as an assistant clerk in a court case involving Citibank and some lendees. It's like he thinks that everything that followed must have happened because of that one court case. Well, we know how much Wayne likes his anecdotes. I guess this one must have convinced him, just like all the other anecdotes convinced him of whatever he thought they were supposed to mean.

Good thing he isn't in charge of our legal system. I shudder to think how bad things would be with him using dream interpretation, visions, and unrelated coincidences to back up his rulings.

Good thing he isn't in charge of our legal system. I shudder to think how bad things would be with him using dream interpretation, visions, and unrelated coincidences to back up his rulings.

it would be something like this;

"Every old woman with a wrinkled face, a furrowed brow, a hairy lip, a gobber tooth, a squint eye, a squeaking voice or scolding tongue, having a rugged coat on her back, a skull-cap on her head, a spindle in her hand and a dog or cat by her side, is not only suspect but pronounced for a witch"